Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't see the issue, if gay people want to get married, so what, let them... Actually the whole concept of "letting them" is a bit repugnant to me, it shouldn't even be a question of being allowed to have a basic human right, it should just be assumed its fine.

 Formosa wrote:
I don't see the issue, if gay people want to get married, so what, let them... Actually the whole concept of "letting them" is a bit repugnant to me, it shouldn't even be a question of being allowed to have a basic human right, it should just be assumed its fine.

Well put.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Haight wrote:

I agree with Marv335. 20-30 years from now people are going to look at same-sex marriage prohibition with the same bewilderment as segregation.

I don't think so. The difference between segregation and gay marriage prohibition is that segregation only occurred in the US (and South Africa) whereas gay marriage is forbidden in the large majority of nations worldwide. While this may change in some liberal Western nations, there are many highly conservative nations where gay marriage will likely still be outlawed in 30 years.

Well, i'm really only expecting the change in more liberal nations. I have zero expectation that in nations where they still stone women to death for infidelity that they'll magically be okay with same sex marriage in three decades hence.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Haight wrote:

I agree with Marv335. 20-30 years from now people are going to look at same-sex marriage prohibition with the same bewilderment as segregation.

I don't think so. The difference between segregation and gay marriage prohibition is that segregation only occurred in the US (and South Africa) whereas gay marriage is forbidden in the large majority of nations worldwide. While this may change in some liberal Western nations, there are many highly conservative nations where gay marriage will likely still be outlawed in 30 years.

Indeed there are places where legal discrimination against homosexuals is gaining ground, e.g. Zimbabwe and Russia.

Very true (and sad). However neither are really know for being beacons of progression, are they ? I wonder if the next person who quotes me will point out that if ISIS achieves its global goal of a worldwide caliphate, it's highly unlikely they'd be okay with it either in 30 years.



I should amend my comment. Progressive nations inclined towards civil liberties and individual freedoms will have the bewildered long view at same sex marriare the same way my generation has towards segregation.

 Matthew wrote:
Wow, I started this because I wanted to know how people felt.

YOU RUINED IT

Whoa there fella... Cool your jets. Even a cursory read through would tell you that the majority of posters on this thread are in favour. A few quick searches would have told you that you were lucky this didn't decend into a flame-fest.

Don't be salty, just maybe slow down on the Baiting threads. Ya know?

I'm not sure, but I think he was being facetious.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
Wow, I started this because I wanted to know how people felt.

YOU RUINED IT

Whoa there fella... Cool your jets. Even a cursory read through would tell you that the majority of posters on this thread are in favour. A few quick searches would have told you that you were lucky this didn't decend into a flame-fest.

Don't be salty, just maybe slow down on the Baiting threads. Ya know?

From the other threads I think he wanted to watch the flamefest and is simply disappointed it's not happening.

 Smacks wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Why do you insist on starting flame bait threads like this?

Actually considering how conservative a lot of the OT is, I'm always quite impressed by the generally liberal attitude towards gay marriage and also transsexualism. Perhaps it's just because it's PC, but I rarely see anyone on here speak out against those things.

If you really want to bait OT, just mention how guns need to be banned. *hides*

if this thread gets to 10 pages i guarantee it will be talking about gun control somehow , it is Dakka after all.

If the gays (i love that term ;D, like the email - it really says something about the person using the term) want to get married who gives a crap.

Is there a subject that frazzled can't fit sausage dogs into? I'm starting to think that in 10 years if i type gun control into a search engine the first result that comes up will be a picture of a short overly long dog.

As long as the bridesmaids are heterosexual ladies i am all for it,
My only confusion will be on the dance floor when you traditionally dance with the bride, who do i ask first! Dilemma's!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb-JZSyhWSc

Obviously I support gay marriage...it is an option for me to marry another man one day.

 Bullockist wrote:


if this thread gets to 10 pages i guarantee it will be talking about gun control somehow , it is Dakka after all..

What does Zimmermann have to say about gay marriage?

 Bullockist wrote:

Is there a subject that frazzled can't fit sausage dogs into?

No.

At this point, opposing gay marriage is just bigotry and backwards if you ask me.

This thread is still open? I guess it is basically because nobody here oppose gay marriage.
Personally, my main reason for supporting it is that is pisses religious bigots off. The side reason is that it also makes some homosexual happy, and this is all nice and cool, but really, pissing of religious bigots is always so nice .
I wonder how it will work up with how gay marriages done in countries that allows them are recognized in countries that do not allow them.

Who cares. The sooner one gets married, the sooner one can get a divorce. That's my optimistic view on things.

No one debating being Matthew asked to give our view on it which we are. No one derailing the thread yet

On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

The religious figure conducting the ceremony would just leave out "and by the state _____" and straight into "Husband and Wife"

I am new to the whole forum thing, and I have not read every single post on the subject matter, but what does this really have to do with plying Warhammer 40K!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

Agreed. State registrars etc have a job to perform, and are bound by ethical codes of conduct and discrimination laws. If you're unwilling to do the job according to the typical codes of conduct involved (i.e. no discrimination), then you shouldn't be doing that job. My point was that a Church, Mosque etc should not have to provide a venue for a wedding against their will if they are opposed on religious grounds to gay marriage. Private property, religious conscience, freedom of speech and all that.

TonyA wrote:
I am new to the whole forum thing, and I have not read every single post on the subject matter, but what does this really have to do with plying Warhammer 40K!

You stepped into the wrong sub forum

step away slowly and move up the the 40k specific forums

TonyA wrote:
I am new to the whole forum thing, and I have not read every single post on the subject matter, but what does this really have to do with plying Warhammer 40K!

Very simple. The Rinbow Warriors chapter and Swinging Swords 532nd regiment are planning some combined arms tactics and new camo patterns. They are working through whether their combined arms approach is acceptable under the current codex, or if the Inquisition will consider them heretics.

Its a serious question. Their fuscia camo schemes have been particularly effective against the eldar Shining Spear aspect warriors.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

It is my French culture speaking, but if you give religious people the sanction to make religious ceremonies that are legally binding, something is very wrong. Keep religion away from the state. Ever.
If we are just talking about random state employee getting angsty because he has to do something against his/her religious beliefs, well, they can change jobs.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

Isn't that how it is done now? in my case it involved a spiked mug of rum, a sap to the head, and a father in law with a shotgun, but don't most others involve getting the wedding license separately?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

It is my French culture speaking, but if you give religious people the sanction to make religious ceremonies that are legally binding, something is very wrong. Keep religion away from the state. Ever.
If we are just talking about random state employee getting angsty because he has to do something against his/her religious beliefs, well, they can change jobs.

Separation of Church and State is supposed to exist, but there's always some bleed over.

Money Money Money

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

It is my French culture speaking, but if you give religious people the sanction to make religious ceremonies that are legally binding, something is very wrong. Keep religion away from the state. Ever.
If we are just talking about random state employee getting angsty because he has to do something against his/her religious beliefs, well, they can change jobs.

Doesn't matter if the person is religious as long as the rule of law is followed.

TonyA wrote:
I am new to the whole forum thing, and I have not read every single post on the subject matter, but what does this really have to do with plying Warhammer 40K!

Nothing! And everything!

That is the joy and pain of the Off Topic forum.

Going with Ox here. In Germany, you can be married even without the church's consent or get the whole package and get married both at church and at the Standesamt.

Kneel before our German supremacy.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Going with Ox here. In Germany, you can be married even without the church's consent or get the whole package and get married both at church and at the Standesamt.

Kneel before our German supremacy.

That can't be German. There's not enough syllables. It needs to be more like Stanasmtkaputtfrankfurterbliestungfatladyzingengotterdamurunginvadinfrankenreichcommerzanplatz

 jreilly89 wrote:
Separation of Church and State is supposed to exist, but there's always some bleed over.

Are you talking about the U.S., or Sweden, or the whole world?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Doesn't matter if the person is religious as long as the rule of law is followed.

Yeah, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about state-sanctioned and state-recognized religious ceremonies. Those exists in Britain iirc, and there were some Muslims that were angry because only the Anglican were explicitly forbidden by law to marry homosexuals, while other religions and denominations were merely authorized to refuse rather than compelled to do so. Yeah, it was that stupid.
http://rt.com/news/uk-muslims-gay-marriage-357/
Religion! Complaining when the law does not force you to do something!